The order, if passed on December 14th during the FCC’s open hearing, would effectively abdicate the commission’s authority to regulate ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act, significantly curtailing oversight of broadband access.

Contact your Senators and Representatives. Mine are, unfortunately, Cruz ("NN is ObamaCare for the internet"), Cornyn (co-sponsored a bill to get rid of NN), and Ted Poe (wrote me back, but isn't supportive of NN and isn't seeking reelection). Contacted a few Congress people that aren't mine too.

Real talk? Some judge is probably going to put a stop on the ruling if it passes, or something is going to be made to keep everything from spiraling out of control. Too many people are mad to accept anything but victory at this point.

Not to mention that the very people lobbying to get rid of Net Neutrality can only stand to lose by taking advantage of its absence. ISPs will either lose money as everyone sticks to the cheapest basic package they can, or opt out of the internet altogether when they refuse to stomach the costs. Social media websites that were once free will now have a price and for a lot of people the lack of a price is the only reason they don't just leave. Eventually every business that relies on the internet suffers and it'll lead to the internet as a marketplace going bust and probably for good.

But hey! They can get more money from their customers for a month, maybe a year if I'm being generous. Totally worth it.

Worst case scenario is that ISPs might make you pony up more cash for services like gaming or block competing sites, yeah? That's definitely a downgrade from what the US had before but not the absolute end of the world.

I don't remember there being such problems 2 years ago. Not that there couldn't be. I don't trust ISPs to not screw me, which is why I'm glad I can just cancel one and go to the other when my new customer discount expires. Of course, I don't trust many of the companies opposed either. In any case, I wouldn't expect much out of Congress. The gridlock is about to get even worse.

Now I know there's a reason you shouldn't blame others when you do something wrong, and that reason is: you might get caught and have to apologize to a bunch of dumb peasants.

Worst case scenario is that ISPs might make you pony up more cash for services like gaming or block competing sites, yeah? That's definitely a downgrade from what the US had before but not the absolute end of the world.

Maybe if their prices are reasonable then the price hike may not be a big deal, but they shouldn't have any power to impede how you use the Internet.

^^That's the thing, the price hike would in the form of impeding usage. If they were just raising their rates normally, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an uproar, because the higher rate would still include full web access.

^Not only that, but some of these ISP guys have said explicitly that they would do it if they legally could.

The whole "Two years ago" is hugely misleading. The FCC has more or less been enforcing net neutrality since 2005. It's just that they lost a lawsuit and then made the 2015 rules that basically said they could enforce the same rules they'd always been.

This is actually quite impressive - seeing as he has been dead for ten years. So unless someone with the exact same name moved into the exact same address as he did at the time, looks like some of those reports about "people coming back from the dead to speak against net neutrality" reports are indeed true.

I can do that too, but a lot of people live in places where they only have one option for their ISP.

God, I hate when people say "oh just get another one, because we have x amount" or "You have this many ISPs here! You clearly have competition!"

Competition my ass - whenever I call them, EVERY ONE except ONE either says
a) "Sorry, we only service condos/apartments"
b) "We only service businesses"
c) "We only service this town"
d) "That's outside our service area, sorry."

At one point, ****ing Qwest would service our neighbours... but not us. We were literally RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM. They could service the people across the street (From them)... but once again, their "area of service" seemed to miraculously end right as their property did, so the people directly across from us couldn't get Qwest. So we only used Comcast because if we didn't use comcast, then we didn't have internet. At all.

The whole "Two years ago" is hugely misleading. The FCC has more or less been enforcing net neutrality since 2005. It's just that they lost a lawsuit and then made the 2015 rules that basically said they could enforce the same rules they'd always been.

This has been bugging me. I wish outlets would stop reporting it as “Obama-era Net Neutrality,” because that automatically makes the anti-Obama people grab their shotguns and American Flags and start firing into the air. Obama didn’t make Net Neutrality, it was a long-standing practice that was upheld during his time in office. People need to get that straight.

It was passed along a party line vote and removed with a party line vote by unelected officials. Of course people are going to take sides of regulation vs. deregulation because the sides have already been taken. I'd be open to warranted regulation, but what I keep hearing is a lot of what if scenarios talking about how you can't trust big corporations, unless they are among the ones who take the same side. I would expect the support for this to grow if something negative actually happens from it.

Now I know there's a reason you shouldn't blame others when you do something wrong, and that reason is: you might get caught and have to apologize to a bunch of dumb peasants.